Machine Mart - small claim

[John Rumm]

Agreed, although I am slightly surprised there is not an angle of attack in the unfair contract terms legislation - since he was pushed into agreeing to a contract without first having sight of it. Perhaps the argument is that he should have insisted on seeing the full T&Cs first.

True, although I am sure the OP was well aware of the provenance of the advice he received.

In spite of the poor outcome for the OP, my own feeling is that not all is lost in this situation - since the result may influence behaviour in the future:

They have injured their public reputation, and also educated anyone who reads this account to insist on their statutory rights. I expect a good number of us will be less willing to give them business in the future, and be far more robust in dealing with any problems with them.

The fact that their "costs" scare tactic was quashed is obviously for the greater good - and may make them less likely to attempt that in the future.

[Jeremy Nicoll - news posts]

They don't (probably) know that. I wonder if, if they were told how much this has been discussed here, they'd have a view. Or maybe they'd try letters-from-lawyers to us all.

[Dave Baker]

They would have no prima facie grounds to do so. The laws on defamation are somewhat onerous on the accused and the only instance in UK law where the accused has to prove his innocence rather than the accuser prove the accused's guilt however a factual reporting of the events of a matter constitute no grounds for defamation. They might have grounds if they could accuse the OP of misrepresenting those facts but otherwise no and in any case no grounds against anyone else unconnected with the matter discussing what they'd read. As always, someone complaining in public about work or goods has to be very careful to be strictly accurate and not introduce bias or untruths.

I have however in the past successfully used the 1997 Protection from Harassment Act as a private individual to dissuade someone under police caution from ranting endlessly on as many internet forums as he could find about engine work he'd asked to be done by me, which was indeed done exactly as he'd asked, but then he decided when the engine parts he'd obtained from or had machined by various different parties to his instructions wouldn't fit together that he'd asked for the wrong thing and it was my fault for not being psychic enough to know that. However a company cannot rely on this act, only a private individual.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Think you'd have to go a few courts higher to argue that. Sadly, it's often the case that if you sign to having agreed to conditions you're stuck with them - even if they later seem unfair.

There was a recent one on the radio - someone had booked a holiday and paid by credit card. The hotel was rubbish and totally misrepresented in the blurb, but the credit card company refused to help because 'terms and conditions' had been signed.

[Steve Firth]

Oh Ghod not again. It was bad enough when some stupid firm tried to sue me and other posters for libel when he asked if he should pay thousands of pounds to a company to have his CV rewritten and submitted for "executive jobs not open to the public". I told him that if he just wanted a good looking CV there were cheaper options.

[stuart noble]

It just seems so out of step with other retailers. I look forward to them going bust

[The Medway Handyman]

[Tim Watts]

On Wednesday 14 August 2013 13:15 Rick Hughes wrote in uk.d-i-y:

I for one promise solomly to never buy anything from the wankers.

Sorry you did not win. However, congrats on seeing them turn green as they claim was rejected.

How much did it all cost you (cash, not time)?

[Fredxx]

I was also thinking that. I guess the credit note had the wording. If not the OP could have had his own set of conditions of accepting a credit note. I wonder what the judge would have made of this!

Some credit cards will do anything to save paying out.

[SteveW]

I may not go that far - I have had occassions where they are the only place in the area that is open and has what I need to carry on. I will however only be using them as a last resort.

SteveW

[Rick Hughes]

£50 plus original item cost of £38

[GB]

They sent someone from head office to contest a £38 claim? My jaw dropped. I thought this must be hundreds.

Did you annoy somebody who took it personally?

[The Other Mike]

An unfair result and shows how screwed up the law can be. However, that they are maybe down £380 quid brings me great pleasure (although I reckon they were trying to pull a fast one there)

A letter will go the Machine Mart head office in the next few days detailing the size of repeat business their head in the sand lets just shaft the customer approach has caused.

[Rick Hughes]

He came form Nottingham, claimed they had to hire a car (200) plus 45p per mile for a 440mile round trip. Judge threw out all travel claim. He also tried to claim for days wages as well (also rejected)

[Tim Watts]

On Thursday 15 August 2013 09:27 Rick Hughes wrote in uk.d-i-y:

Dork. Hope his bosses kicked someone in the nuts - all over a £38 product!

[Rick Hughes]

The person who attended court and has been dealing with this was Steve Carnell After Sales Manager Machine Mart

211 Lower Parliament Street Nottingham NG1 1GN [e-mail]

[Dave Baker]

and done.

email to [e-mail] FAO Mr Steve Carnell

"Dear Steve,

I've been following with interest for some months on Usenet in uk-d-i-y your bizarre antics in refusing to refund Mr Rick Hughes £38 for the unfit for purpose inspection light he returned to you (for a credit note which turned out to have an expiration date he didn't know about and thence became worthless) and your absurd behaviour in actually defending the case in court for such a trivial amount and trying to claim hundreds of pounds in costs from him rather than just play the white man. "Customer service" is apparently a completely alien concept to you and trying to retain happy customers, and thence hopefully over the years their friends and associates too, possibly something you maybe once heard of but wish to take no part in.

In the past I've spent a fair bit with your company on engine building equipment such as engine stands and a 1 ton engine crane. Not enough of course on its own to make a scrap of difference to your annual results one way or the other but small amounts from many customers is what adds up.

You are dear sir an absolute tosser and you and your company can be assured of no further business from myself or any of my friends and colleagues I can persuade likewise.

If you had a scrap of decency you'd apologise and refund Mr Hughes his £38 plus his court costs and he'd no doubt post that in the thread and you'd regain the support of the many people who've been following the case.

Cordial regards,

David Baker"

[tony sayer]

In article , Tim Watts scribeth thus

Its just piss poor UK best in class management.. or rather mismanagement.

Compare it to Toolstation. I bought a couple of items, they weren't faulty we just didn't need them and we'd had them in stock for some while unopened and still in as new condition.

Took them back for a refund. Yes Sir no problem sorry they weren't right for what you needed but a full refund.

Hence we go back there for more equipment..

Its that simple. OK they might for all I know have just put the other stuff back into stock there was nothing wrong with it, they might have scrapped it or flogged it off cheap but either way no concern of mine just that I am still a customer of theirs and will remain so.

They might have lost a small amount of money but they will know that we'll be back and spend again and they will make up that loss if indeed they've incurred one.

If they put me through what the OP has been through then f*ck them plain and simple...

Regardless of any legal rights or wrongs they will have to learn its people your dealing with and thats where a lot of them fall down in retail.

I bet John Lewis wouldn't have done that, another good outfit to deal with and we do because of their excellent customer service....

[Tim Watts]

On Thursday 15 August 2013 11:24 tony sayer wrote in uk.d-i-y:

My email:

Dear Mr Carnell,

I've been following the Usenet uk-d-i-y group about Rick Hughes and his £38 lamp that he returned to you as not fit for purpose.

I was very interested in the decision to offer a time limited credit note, instead of a quibble free cash refund (as many of your competitors would have done) I was then further interested in the decision to defend this action in court and then try to claim ten times the amount of the original purchase in travel expenses (rejected as I understand).

So, from what I conclude, your company would rather spend £380 than keep one customer happy over a £38 cash refund for an unfit product.

Not to mention the fact that you have certainly lost me as a potential customer - I am about to buy 2 sanders, good quality and later this year, a pressure washer - probably one of the Nilfisk models that you sell.

I wonder how many other sales you have lost?

Well done - British management at its best. Good luck with that approach...

Yours,

Once an occasional customer and now definitely not a customer, ever.

[Tim Watts]

On Thursday 15 August 2013 11:24 tony sayer wrote in uk.d-i-y:

Oh look - they have a Facebook page with open posting: